smoke_ir

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It mentions 'ISOLATED store' indicating safety from side effects, and output format {ok,result,trace}. However, it lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the store after execution.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, no fluff. Core information (verb, resource, isolation, output) is front-loaded. Each word serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description helpfully includes output format. But with nested objects and no parameter details, the description leaves gaps. The isolated store hint is valuable but overall could be more comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It does not explain the app_ir object structure, function name format, or how args should be provided. The description uses general terms 'one function' without clarifying parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool runs a function from an app.ir.json in an isolated store and reports the result in a structured format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like deploy_ir (deployment) and validate_ir (validation) by focusing on isolated execution.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for testing functions in an isolated environment but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives like run_read_tool or deploy_ir. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.